Legislature(2013 - 2014)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/10/2014 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB200 | |
| SB176 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 176 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 203 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 200 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
March 10, 2014
1:35 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator John Coghill, Chair
Senator Lesil McGuire, Vice Chair
Senator Fred Dyson
Senator Donald Olson
Senator Bill Wielechowski
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 203
"An Act relating to an interstate compact on a balanced federal
budget."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
SENATE BILL NO. 200
"An Act establishing a right of action for the death of an
unborn child in certain circumstances."
- HEARD & HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 176
"An Act relating to the regulation of firearms and knives by the
University of Alaska."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 200
SHORT TITLE: WRONGFUL DEATH OF AN UNBORN CHILD
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) MCGUIRE
02/24/14 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/24/14 (S) JUD
03/10/14 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
BILL: SB 176
SHORT TITLE: REG. OF FIREARMS/KNIVES BY UNIVERSITY
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) COGHILL
02/14/14 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/14/14 (S) JUD
03/03/14 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/03/14 (S) Heard & Held
03/03/14 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
03/05/14 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/05/14 (S) Heard & Held
03/05/14 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
03/10/14 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
WITNESS REGISTER
CARL E. BRENT, representing himself
Wasilla, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 200.
MARY HARNED, Staff Counsel
Americans United for Life
Washington, D.C.
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 200.
JON GOODWIN, representing himself
Wasilla, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 200.
SUSANNE HANCOCK, representing herself
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 200.
KIMBERLY WALLACE-GOODWIN, representing herself
Wasilla, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 200.
LELA RAYMOND, representing herself
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 200.
APRIL DISHNEAU, representing herself
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 200.
SHIELA WALLACE, representing herself
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 200.
HANS RODVIK, Intern
Senator John Coghill
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed a potential committee substitute
for SB 176.
CHAD HUTCHISON, Staff
Senator John Coghill
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered supporting information related to SB
176.
BOB BIRD, representing himself
Nikiski, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 176.
DREW LEMISH, President
Union of Students
University of Alaska Anchorage
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition of SB 176.
MATTHEW KIRBY, West Coast Regional Director
Students for Concealed Carry
La Miranda, California
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 176.
JOHN ASPENES, representing himself
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition of SB 176.
YOUNGER OLIVER, representing herself
University of Alaska Anchorage Student
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition of SB 176.
VICTORIA DANIELS, representing herself
University of Alaska Southeast Student
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition of SB 176.
LANCE ROBERTS, representing himself
Fairbanks, Alaska,
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 176.
CALLIE CONERTON, representing herself
University of Alaska Southeast Student
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition of SB 176.
LORA VESS, Ph.D., representing herself
University of Alaska Southeast Professor
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in strong opposition of SB 176.
JAENELL MANCHESTER, representing herself
University of Alaska Fairbanks
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition of SB 176.
CHUCK GREEN
Second Amendment Task Force
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 176.
COURTNEY ENRIGHT, Student Regent
University of Alaska System
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 176.
DAVID NOON, representing himself
Associate Professor and Chair
Social Sciences Department
University of Alaska Southeast
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition of SB 176.
TASHA HANSEN, representing herself
University of Alaska Southeast student
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 176.
SCOTT GELLERMAN, representing himself
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 176.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:35:34 PM
CHAIR JOHN COGHILL called the Senate Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:35 p.m. Present at the call to
order were Senators Dyson, Olson, McGuire, and Chair Coghill.
SB 200-WRONGFUL DEATH OF AN UNBORN CHILD
1:36:38 PM
CHAIR COGHILL announced the consideration of SB 200. "An Act
establishing a right of action for the death of an unborn child
in certain circumstances." This was the first hearing.
1:36:42 PM
SENATOR MCGUIRE, speaking as sponsor of SB 200, explained that
this rounds out legislation that Senator Dyson introduced
several years ago that deemed an unborn child a victim the same
as the pregnant mother who was the victim of any negligent or
unlawful actions. What wasn't done at the time was to allow for
civil law recovery. SB 200 does that.
AS 09.15.018 is a new section that adds an action for the
wrongful death of an unborn child. Nothing will bring the child
back but this gives the parents a path to justice through both
civil and criminal avenues and perhaps an opportunity towards
healing, she said.
CHAIR COGHILL asked what general level of proof this would
require.
SENATOR MCGUIRE replied the mental intent is intentional action
and negligence in the area of wrongful death.
1:42:47 PM
CARL E. BRENT, representing himself, Wasilla, Alaska, testified
in support of SB 200. He said it wasn't until his family went
through a terrible loss that he became aware that Alaska was one
of just ten states that do not recognize deceased children in
civil court. This should be fixed so that young couples in the
future don't have to face this loss and have no civil recourse.
1:44:18 PM
MARY HARNED, Staff Counsel, Americans United for Life,
Washington, D.C. testified in support of SB 200. She testified
as follows on behalf of Jackson's Law:
Alaska currently bars a cause of action for deaths of
an unborn child unless the child is born alive and
dies thereafter. As Senator McGuire stated, this
limitation starkly contrasts with Alaska's criminal
law, which recognizes that an unborn child at any
stage of development may be considered a victim of
murder, manslaughter, and criminally negligent
homicide.
The wrongful death cause of action is intended to
correct this law and the common law where no cause of
action survives the victim's death. Thus, the wrong-
doer could escape liability by inflicting injury so
severe that they resulted in the death of his victims,
which is a terrible irony that was in the law before
wrongful death statutes started to be enacted in the
states.
Forty states recognize that a parent should be
permitted to bring a wrongful death action when his or
her unborn child dies in the womb as a result of a
third party's criminal action, negligence,
malpractice, or production or distribution of an
unsafe product. Tragically, Alaska parents of unborn
children who lose their lives because of the wrongful
acts or omissions of others cannot receive this
justice. These parents unquestionably have interest in
the life, health, and wellbeing of their children.
Wrongful behavior which results in the death of an
unborn child carries the same social and emotional
costs, including bereavement, a loss to society, and
the lawlessness and disregard for life, which
characterizes negligence, harmful and wrongful
behavior.
Jackson's Law will extend the protections provided by
the state's wrongful death statute to all unborn
children in Alaska.
1:46:53 PM
JON GOODWIN, representing himself, Wasilla, Alaska, testified in
support of SB 200. He advised that the bill is named after his
son, Jackson. He started working on this legislation shortly
after Jackson passed and he became aware that Alaska doesn't
recognize unborn children in civil court. He described the pain
of losing a child at 42 weeks gestation only to have people
express condolences at his wife's miscarriage. Jackson was 9.5
pounds and fully developed and would be here today but for the
healthcare that was provided that day, Mr. Goodwin said.
MR. GOODWIN advised that he has been to Iraq and Afghanistan
where he lost good friends and was shot down in 2005. He had to
deal with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), but the death
of Jackson has been more traumatic than any pain he experienced
overseas. Drawing from an ethics law course, he stated that the
community that feels no moral indignation over a crime being
committed against one of its members, and fails to stand up for
that member, fails to show the respect that victims deserve. Mr.
Goodwin stressed that it's the right thing for the community to
recognize this shortcoming in the law.
1:49:18 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI joined the committee.
CHAIR COGHILL stated that this committee respects victims to the
highest degree possible.
1:54:37 PM
SUSANNE HANCOCK, representing herself, Anchorage, Alaska,
testified in support of SB 200. She said she was testifying from
a personal perspective as a good friend of the Wallace and
Goodwin families. She is part of the ripple effect of the
tragedy; she was looking forward to seeing their baby.
1:55:53 PM
KIMBERLY WALLACE-GOODWIN, representing herself, Wasilla, Alaska,
testified in support of SB 200. She related that she and her
husband lost their son, Jackson Wallace-Goodwin on December 6,
2012. His passing has impacted the entire family, including the
grandparents, aunts and uncles, friends and their families. She
urged the committee support SB 200 and give a voice to those
like Jackson who do not have a voice.
1:57:10 PM
LELA RAYMOND, representing herself, Ketchikan, Alaska, testified
in support of SB 200. She stated she was testifying on behalf on
her nephew, Tanner Eugene Richards, who was lost about 16 months
ago. Her niece went to the hospital at full term expressing that
something was wrong. She spent about five hours with a nurse who
never called the doctor despite repeated requests. The baby was
alive and had a heartbeat when she went to the hospital, but he
died in that five hours and her niece had to deliver a dead
baby. Ms. Raymond said the nurse kept second-guessing herself
and she believes that if that nurse knew she would get in
trouble if something went wrong she might have called somebody.
That may have saved Tanner's life. Passing SB 200 will help
prevent things like this from happening in the future, she said.
2:00:50 PM
APRIL DISHNEAU, representing herself, Palmer, Alaska, testified
in support of SB 200. She described her experience as a high-
risk pregnant mother who lost her baby three years ago. She was
rushed to the hospital at 36 weeks with high blood pressure.
When her blood pressure went down, she was told to go home and
bed rest. Her placenta ruptured after just a day and her baby
died.
2:02:40 PM
SHIELA WALLACE, representing herself, Kodiak, Alaska, testified
in support of SB 200. As Jackson's grandmother she advised that
she is one of the people affected by this and would like the
committee to pass the bill.
CHAIR COGHILL asked the sponsor to discuss the required mental
state.
SENATOR MCGUIRE said the bill is meant to coincide with AS
11.41.150-170, which is murder of an unborn child, manslaughter
of an unborn child, and criminally negligent homicide of an
unborn child. The mental state for .150 is intent to kill an
unborn child; the mental state for .160 is intentionally,
knowingly, or recklessly causing the death of an unborn child;
and the mental state for .170 is with criminal negligence the
person causes the death of an unborn child. She noted that the
drafter inserted this new section under civil damages in Title
9. The action for wrongful death of an unborn child is added to
the two current sections that allow parents to sue for seduction
of a child and for death or disability of a party.
She read the description in subsection (a) and committed to
bring a better definition of "wrongful act" and "omission" to
the next hearing since the standards aren't specifically linked
to those found in the criminal code. She thanked the families
for testifying on such a difficult topic.
2:08:12 PM
CHAIR COGHILL stated his intention to hold SB 200 for further
discussion.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if the Department of Law was present.
CHAIR COGHILL said a representative would be available on
Wednesday.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI expressed interest in hearing from DOL
about the constitutionality of the bill given the definition of
unborn child in AS 11.81.962, and about potential damages. He
also questioned whether doctors and nurses or anyone from the
medical community had weighed in on the bill. He assumed that
the bill wouldn't apply to harm to the fetus through the morning
after pill or mothers who drink during pregnancy, but he'd like
that on the record.
2:10:39 PM
SENATOR MCGUIRE responded to the questions. First, the bill
specifically tracks the criminal bill that was passed in 2006;
it has the definition of unborn child in AS 11.81.900 but it
doesn't separate by trimesters. DOL might have an opinion about
the constitutionality of the bill, but her opinion is that it
would be constitutional. She suspected that damages would relate
to the pain and suffering of the parents as opposed to the
potential for a child's life at one week of development. She
conceded that the argument about doctors and nurses was valid in
the discussion of the bill. Finally, the bill specifically
exempts the morning after pill or anything related to abortion
and any act of a pregnant woman against herself.
CHAIR COGHILL suggested the sponsor look at how the 40 other
states with similar legislation had addressed those questions.
2:13:17 PM
CHAIR COGHILL held SB 200 in committee for further
consideration.
SB 176-REG. OF FIREARMS/KNIVES BY UNIVERSITY
2:14:02 PM
CHAIR COGHILL announced the consideration of SB 176. "An Act
relating to the regulation of firearms and knives by the
University of Alaska." This was the third hearing.
2:15:16 PM
HANS RODVIK, Intern, Senator John Coghill, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, advised that the sponsor has been
considering the concerns of the university. He and his staff
were working on ways to balance public safety interests versus
the fundamental right to keep and bear arms and the right to
privacy guaranteed in the Alaska Constitution. To that end, a
forthcoming committee substitute (CS) would narrow the bill to
precisely focus on concealed carry. He expressed hope that this
would diffuse some of the concerns and the notions that 16-year-
olds would carry long guns on campus. He stressed that there was
never any intent to have open carry on campus; the intent is to
improve public safety by providing adults on public campuses the
same form of defense they have throughout the rest of Alaska.
2:17:20 PM
CHAD HUTCHISON, Staff, Senator John Coghill, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, advised that he is an attorney and
UAF alumni. He restated the intent of SB 176 and the fundamental
rights involved and noted that Alaska is one of the few states
that has the fundamental right to privacy built into the state
constitution. He explained that when the question is fundamental
rights, the standard used by the court system is strict
scrutiny. That means that the University of Alaska has to show
that their restriction is necessary to a compelling state
interest and that it is the least restrictive alternative.
MR. HUTCHISON said the University of Alaska analysis touches on
that point and the Board of Regents' policy incorporates it in
Chapter 02.09.020(D) when it specifically states that the
University's compelling interest is what is at stake. To explain
what that means, he paraphrased the standard set forth in the
2007 State v. Planned Parenthood case: "If the individual right
proves to be fundamental, then strict scrutiny applies."
MR. HUTCHISON said the University of Alaska policy can only
withstand constitutional scrutiny if it provides the least
restrictive alternative. University officials will have to
answer that question. Everyone acknowledges that the university
has a compelling interest in ensuring public safety and the
safety of its students, but the second part of the analysis must
also be done. If firearms are restricted on campus, is the least
restrictive alternative used?
MR. HUTCHISON said he didn't know if the university had brought
forward least restrictive alternatives but he would suggest
concealed carry training/safety courses and permits related to
carrying concealed handguns. In order to restrict firearms, the
burden is on the University of Alaska to follow the constitution
and create a policy that is the least restrictive among the
alternatives.
2:23:12 PM
BOB BIRD, representing himself, Nikiski, Alaska, testified in
support of SB 176. He advised that he has been a public school
teacher for 40 years and an adjunct instructor at the community
college where he frequently takes classes. Every time he sees
the signs at the entrance prohibiting weapons on campus he feels
insulted because he's read the state constitution. He took issue
with a previous statement and asserted that the university's
mission is to educate, not to protect. He wants to protect
himself because protection by others soon morphs into
restriction. He suggested the legislature draft a bill to defend
students who don't comply with the university firearms policy,
because that policy is out of compliance with the state
constitution.
DREW LEMISH, President, Union of Students, University of Alaska,
Anchorage, testified in opposition of SB 176. He said the bill
fixes something that isn't broken and puts every person on
campus at risk. He relayed that as a student he doesn't feel
secure sitting alongside somebody with a firearm or knowing that
any of the 10,000 people on campus every day could walk into his
office with a gun. He asked the committee to consider why people
should be able to walk into his university office with a gun if
they can't walk into legislator's offices with a gun. He urged
the committee not to pass the bill.
2:27:52 PM
MATTHEW KIRBY, West Coast Regional Director, Students for
Concealed Carry, La Miranda, California, stated that passing SB
176 will compel the University of Alaska to comply with state
law. He expressed hope for a nation-wide adoption of laws to
protect the ability of citizens to defend themselves in any
circumstance in which their lives may be threatened. While no
law can ensure the safety of citizens in every circumstance, the
provisions of SB 176 are a prudent addition to Alaska law. The
bill is consistent with the finding that average citizens can be
trusted to use their firearms responsibly in self-defense
scenarios. Of the 206 university campuses that allow students
and faculty to carry concealed weapons, there has been no
discernible increase in violent incidents.
2:30:49 PM
JOHN ASPENES, representing himself, Fairbanks, Alaska, said he
is a retired professor of engineering at UAF who opposes the
unrestricted carry of firearms on University of Alaska campuses
for the following reasons: UAF has an armed police force, there
is little crime on campus, many high school age and younger
students are on campus year around, the university acts in a
parental role of many college-age students who are immature and
live in a stressful environment, there will be unintended
consequences such as accidents or crimes committed in the heat
of passion, there is no compelling reason to allow unrestricted
or concealed carry firearms on the UA campuses. He urged the
continued restriction of firearms from all UA campuses.
2:32:42 PM
YOUNGER OLIVER, representing herself as a UAA student,
Anchorage, Alaska, testified in opposition of SB 176. She said
the current policies have been effective since they were
implemented. The Board of Regents is the governing body that
knows the most about what is happening on UA campuses and should
therefore have the authority to develop and implement policy.
Campuses are a stressful environment and students sometimes
threaten professors and other students. Allowing students to
bring weapons to campus is a bad idea and could cause bad things
to happen. A better idea is to focus on preventing crime on
campus. Now she can report a student who is carrying a weapon on
campus, but if SB 176 passes neither she nor the police will be
unable to do anything until a crime has been committed. UAA also
has childcare facilities on campus and these children would be
vulnerable. She urged the committee to review SB 176 and hold it
in committee.
CHAIR COGHILL assured Ms. Oliver that state law regarding
childcare facilities would stand.
2:35:07 PM
VICTORIA DANIELS, representing herself as a UAS student, Juneau,
Alaska, testified in opposition of SB 176. She said that in the
role of student government senator she has been reaching out to
students, staff, and faculty about SB 176, and a majority of the
groups have spoken out against the bill. The general consensus
is that the bill would create a safety issue. The university's
primary priority is education and allowing guns on campuses
shifts the focus to public safety. Another concern is that K-12
students are hosted on campus. The coalition of student leaders
and the student government have both taken a stand in opposition
to SB 176 and she would like the committee to consider those
views when voting.
2:36:38 PM
LANCE ROBERTS, representing himself, Fairbanks, Alaska,
testified in support of SB 176. He asserted that the only thing
the university policies have been effective in doing is to teach
students that the constitution is a meaningless document, that
it's okay for people to take away their constitutional rights,
that only bad guys can do anything, and that they should wait
for somebody to defend them instead of defending themselves. He
cautioned against teaching fear and encouraged teaching students
to defend themselves and stand up for their neighbor. The police
aren't omnipotent; the best defense is for good people to be
armed. He refuted the argument that K-12 students on university
campuses are vulnerable. He pointed out that K-12 students walk
through the rest of the community that extends the right to bear
arms to its citizens, and it hasn't presented any special
problem. He encouraged the committee to advance SB 176 and give
university students the opportunity to learn what it means to be
given responsibility and exercise it appropriately.
2:39:43 PM
CALLIE CONERTON, UAS student government senator, Juneau, Alaska,
said she was speaking on behalf of the students of the
University of Alaska to discuss SB 176 and the students' views.
She advised that when the coalition of student leaders discussed
the bill with students, over 70 percent voiced opposition. The
coalition does not believe the bill is beneficial or necessary.
The university is a place of education and not the place for
guns. Students also find it scary that a person can carry a gun
without permits or training. Both UAA and UAF have daycare
facilities but families don't feel safe bringing their children
to a campus that allows concealed carry weapons. She said the
university is committed to the safety of its students, staff,
and visitors and she stands behind the university, the student
government at UAS, and the coalition of student leaders in
opposition to SB 176.
2:41:40 PM
LORA VESS, Ph.D., representing herself, said she is an assistant
professor at UAS who is strongly opposed to SB 176. She does not
oppose the owning or using guns but does not believe that
institutions of higher education are the appropriated setting to
wage a battle over rights to possess firearms. Students who are
struggling to find their adult identity and develop a sense of
self don't need the complication of a potentially explosive
variable in this transition period. She advised that she is a
graduate of Virginia Tech and had friends on campus the day of
the shooting. That act of gun violence was horrific, but it
didn't reverse her position regarding firearms on college
campuses. It made her aware of the complexity of the factors
that shape criminal action.
SB 176 is not reflective of the systematic understanding of the
roots of violence on university campuses. Rather, it is
ideologically driven with a narrow conceptualization of freedom
and liberty that has nothing to do with the operation and needs
of Alaska's universities or the safety of students and other
people on campus every day, she said. Amending the bill to
concealed carry does not alleviate any concerns, even with a
four-hour safety course. That is less time than students expect
to study for an exam and their life or the lives of others
doesn't depend on passing that exam. She urged the committee to
support the University Of Alaska Board Of Regents in their
opposition to SB 176.
JAENELL MANCHESTER, representing herself as a UAF student,
Fairbanks, Alaska, stated that the current policies implemented
by the Board of Regents are more than adequate to safely
regulate firearms on campus. She highlighted that Alaska has
some of the highest suicide by firearm rates in the nation. This
is not an unrecognized concern on UA campuses, but SB 176
potentially removes the university's ability to proactively act
against depressed and volatile individuals, she said. The
International Review of Law and Economics found a strong
positive affect of gun prevalence on suicide. She said that SB
176 will increase access to firearms on campus and this will not
be a benefit to students, particularly those with a mental
illness.
2:46:32 PM
CHUCK GREEN, Second Amendment Task Force, Anchorage, Alaska,
stated support for SB 176 and agreement with most of the
testimony on 3/5/14. He explained that the task force, working
in conjunction with Students for Concealed Carry, became
involved in this issue in 2009. The first organized activity was
a campus demonstration in spring 2010 in order to gain an
audience with the Board of Regents or start a legal action.
After an administrative hearing, a decision was made to go
through university channels to remedy the situation. However,
efforts to reason with the Board have been unsuccessful.
Addressing previous comments questioning the responsibility of
youth, he said he has taught kids as young as eight years old
how to shoot and was struck with the seriousness with which they
approached the subject. He also pointed out that middle and high
school kids living in the Bush often carry guns to school.
Concerns about accidents are valid, but motor vehicles are more
dangerous than firearms and 16-year-olds are allowed to drive.
MR. GREEN discussed news reports of violent or potentially
violent incidents that were stopped by armed citizens. According
to one estimate, as many as 2 million crimes a year are stopped
by armed citizens. Some of the incidents were in Alaska. He
suggested the committee consider in the deliberations of SB 176
that federal law already prevents mental patients from owning
weapons. He further suggested that the committee support the
bill because individuals shouldn't have to ask permission to
exercise their rights.
2:50:48 PM
COURTNEY ENRIGHT, Student Regent, said she was speaking on
behalf of the 34,000 students in the University of Alaska System
that she statutorily represents. She advised that she has
received an outcry of student responses to SB 176 and about 70
percent don't support the bill as written. The largest concern
is the protection of the learning environment because the bill
as currently written wouldn't allow a professor to remove a
student from the learning environment if they were using a
weapon in an inappropriate or distracting manner. Other concerns
include high suicide rates, consumption of alcohol and other
mind altering substances, and the high stress environment of the
university that sometimes causes people to act differently. The
rest of the concerns can be summed up in the "wisdom of 20
somethings." They make mistakes and they're learning, but the
university is a fairly safe environment in which to make those
mistakes. She questioned the wisdom of allowing increased access
to a tool that could allow making mistakes in a way that would
haunt an individual for the rest of their life or potentially
shorten their life.
2:53:07 PM
DAVID NOON, representing himself, said he is an associate
professor and chair of the Social Sciences Department at the
University of Alaska Southeast. As an educator, he can think of
very few things more detrimental to the university mission and
his mission as a teacher than SB 176. It promises to raise the
likelihood that gun violence will occur throughout the campus.
He agreed with the previous speaker that there are a great many
compelling reasons to limit the availability of firearms on
campuses. Young people between the ages of 18 and 24 are vastly
more likely than other-age cohorts to drink excessively, to
suffer from mental illness, and to commit violent gun crimes.
There are horrific exceptions, but college campuses are among
the safest places for 18-24 year olds to gather. Statistics from
the U.S. Justice Department bear this out. The likelihood of
being a victim of a violent crime is about 20 percent less on a
college campus than elsewhere. Campus living is also safer; 7
out of 8 university students who are victims of violent crimes
are victimized off campus. Ninety percent of the violence
committed against college students takes place off campus. He
said the logic of the bill is to make the universities safer,
but it's an ideological search for a solution that lacks an
empirical problem that can be identified. He said he wouldn't
want to trust any of his past or present students with his
safety in a stressful, violent situation. He doesn't trust his
employers on every question, but he does trust them to design
policies that allow him to teach in the safest possible
environment. He said he doesn't trust an assembly of legislators
to design or eradicate those policies and would urge defeat of
the bill.
SENATOR DYSON asked if he trusts legislators and the
administration to dictate which of the Bill of Rights will be
abridged.
MR. NOON answered, "Certainly." He added that he also trusts the
Board of Regents who are familiar with the working lives of
students, faculty and staff to design policies that keep people
safe.
TASHA HANSEN, representing herself, Juneau, Alaska, said she is
a student at UAS. She discussed the Board of Regents' policy
that allows weapons on campus so long as they are locked in the
trunk of a car. The problem for her is that she's in a
wheelchair, she wants to carry a firearm for self-protection,
and she doesn't have a car. She stressed that it's a matter of
personal safety to be able to carry a weapon for self-defense.
3:00:33 PM
SCOTT GELLERMAN, representing himself, Anchorage, Alaska, stated
that he's read SB 176 and the sponsor statement and is in full
agreement with both. The constitutional question is sufficient
grounds to pass the bill. The concerns regarding unsafe,
unlawful, and irresponsible carry are unfounded and based on
fear and anxiety rather than factual data. He surmised that the
majority of individuals who would choose to carry on campus if
this bill passes are already participating in lawful and
responsible carry while they're off campus. He doesn't
anticipate any detectible change in day-to-day activities on
campus should this bill pass. SB 176 is about rights, not
misguided fear, he concluded.
3:02:16 PM
CHAIR COGHILL held SB 176 in committee for further
consideration. Public testimony was open.
3:02:37 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Coghill adjourned the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting at 3:02 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Written Testimony / Supporting Documents.zip |
SJUD 3/10/2014 1:30:00 PM |
SB 176 |
| SB200-LAW-CIV-03-07-14.pdf |
HRLS 4/13/2014 2:00:00 PM SJUD 3/10/2014 1:30:00 PM |
SB 200 |
| Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HRLS 4/13/2014 2:00:00 PM SJUD 3/10/2014 1:30:00 PM |
SB 200 |
| Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SJUD 3/10/2014 1:30:00 PM |
SB 200 |
| Supporting Document.pdf |
HRLS 4/13/2014 2:00:00 PM SJUD 3/10/2014 1:30:00 PM |
SB 200 |
| UA Legal Analysis.pdf |
SJUD 3/10/2014 1:30:00 PM |
SB 176 |